Should "shoot to kill" be allowed??

[lewis111]

Mainly aiming this at police and serious cases but you can answer generally

Discuss

[Liam-]

Yes

[Ninastar]

if a police officer is about the be killed, then absolutely.

[Denver]

Yes if the police are putting there life at risk they should be given a weapon to defend themselves

[LukeB]

Only in VERY serious cases

[kirklancaster]

Though not often - despite the increasingly exceptionally violent and insane world in which we live - I think that there WILL be times when our military or armed police have no choice than to 'kill or be killed' but there should ALWAYS be a rigorous enquiry after such an incident HAS occurred.

If I personally was faced with an insane jihadist armed with an automatic weapon AND wearing a 'Suicide Belt', I would ALWAYS shoot to kill.

For all other scenarios, I cannot see why a 'Shoot to Disable' policy is not sufficient.

[joeysteele]

Though not often - despite the increasingly exceptionally violent and insane world in which we live - I think that there WILL be times when our military or armed police have no choice than to 'kill or be killed' but there should ALWAYS be a rigorous enquiry after such an incident HAS occurred.

If I personally was faced with an insane jihadist armed with an automatic weapon AND wearing a 'Suicide Belt', I would ALWAYS shoot to kill.

For all other scenarios, I cannot see why a 'Shoot to Disable' policy is not sufficient.

Really strong and good post,I go along with this completely.

[lewis111]

Though not often - despite the increasingly exceptionally violent and insane world in which we live - I think that there WILL be times when our military or armed police have no choice than to 'kill or be killed' but there should ALWAYS be a rigorous enquiry after such an incident HAS occurred.

If I personally was faced with an insane jihadist armed with an automatic weapon AND wearing a 'Suicide Belt', I would ALWAYS shoot to kill.

For all other scenarios, I cannot see why a 'Shoot to Disable' policy is not sufficient.

I completely agree. Shoot to disabled should be used if police are not under immediate threat or anyone else is and they have time and are calm enough to make sure they do not kill the person
If their own or many other's lives are at risk they should be stopping the killer, not thinking about if the murderer/terrorist will die or be hurt

[JoshBB]

If absolutely necessary, for example if lots of peoples' lives were endangered and guilt was beyond doubt, then yes.

[bots]

While a policy may come into play, more depends on the ammunition used and that can't be changed on a split second dependent on the situation

[Tom4784]

Only when there's no other option.

[JoshBB]

Though not often - despite the increasingly exceptionally violent and insane world in which we live - I think that there WILL be times when our military or armed police have no choice than to 'kill or be killed' but there should ALWAYS be a rigorous enquiry after such an incident HAS occurred.

If I personally was faced with an insane jihadist armed with an automatic weapon AND wearing a 'Suicide Belt', I would ALWAYS shoot to kill.

For all other scenarios, I cannot see why a 'Shoot to Disable' policy is not sufficient.

Very well-written. Shoot to Kill is acceptable only in exceptional circumstances such as the one you mentioned.

[Amy Jade]

I think shoot to kill should only be allowed if the situation really warrens it, such as an armed person is pointing a gun at an innocent victims head and the only way to stop the threat is STK then do it but if it's an armed person that could be stopped with less force and reasonably detained then that.

[Northern Monkey]

Yes of course.If they are going to point a gun or hold a knife to somebody or have explosives then kill them.

[Firewire]

Only in very serious cases, when there isn't another option. For example, preventing someone else's death.

[bots]

http://www.shirtaday.com/pastShirts/20090716_aimtopleaseBig.jpg

[Vicky.]

Depends. I mean, the De Mendez case should have taught us something at least...

I really don't know where I stand on this tbh, do I prefer the chance of a few innocents being killed when it makes it easier to get terrorists? :S

[DemolitionRed]

Depends. I mean, the De Mendez case should have taught us something at least...

I really don't know where I stand on this tbh, do I prefer the chance of a few innocents being killed when it makes it easier to get terrorists? :S

That's what came to mind when I read the ops question. Shoot to kill policies can't afford to make mistakes with innocent civilians like Mendez. That whole scenario that led to his death was just a cluster fk of errors.

[Ammi]

Only when there's no other option.

....hmmm, I'm with Dezzy in this but I do also think that it's a difficult one because 'allowed to shoot to kill' can sometimes be interpreted as a first option...and I think has in many police cases...to give someone that power is then taking all control away and giving it to someone else...leaving an individual personality to decide the 'no other option' situation...and as we know, every personality is different....so hmmmm really....

[lostalex]

you shouldn't aim a gun at someone unless you are willing to kill them.

I think some people have an ignorant view of guns because of movies, they think it's easy to just shoot them in the leg to incapacitate them or even shoot the gun out of their hands because we see it in movies all the time. handguns are not that accurate especially when you only have fractions of a second to make a decision to fire.

[Scarlett.]

I probably would have been against the idea last year, but it's clear we are entering more dangerous times, but it must always be when there is no other option, like as in, someone who is obviously going to kill others, and not some guy who is running away from guys with guns.

[lostalex]

I probably would have been against the idea last year, but it's clear we are entering more dangerous times, but it must always be when there is no other option, like as in, someone who is obviously going to kill others, and not some guy who is running away from guys with guns.

don't you think, if you make a general rule, if you run away from police they cannot use any force against you it will encourage ALL criminals to run??

It's like saying no police can break the speed limit when they are pursuing a criminal. all that does is tell the criminals if they break speed limit they can get away.

[Marsh.]

don't you think, if you make a general rule, if you run away from police they cannot use any force against you it will encourage ALL criminals to run??

It's like saying no police can break the speed limit when they are pursuing a criminal. all that does is tell the criminals if they break speed limit they can get away.

There are ways of using force on criminals running from the police that don't involve shooting them down.

[lostalex]

There are ways of using force on criminals running from the police that don't involve shooting them down.

but it gives the criminals another advantage, doesn't it?

[Ammi]

..there is no coming back from shoot to kill if it's implemented, no margin of human error and it's a human who is holding the gun..if someone is innocent of a crime, then they are dead ..if someone is guilty of a crime, then their sentence of death has been decided out of any law/justice system...

[lostalex]

..there is no coming back from shoot to kill if it's implemented, no margin of human error and it's a human who is holding the gun..if someone is innocent of a crime, then they are dead ..if someone is guilty of a crime, then their sentence of death has been decided out of any law/justice system...

how many innocent people are actually killed by cops though?

even in this whole silly #blacklivesmatter thing, all of the black epople killed by cops were doing something wrong.

people who aren't doing anything wrong don't get killed by cops.

I haven't seen any recent examples of a completely innocent person getting killed by a cop...

[Ammi]

...even in cases of guilt though/of committing a crime..would that crime bring a death sentence ...what's the point of innocent until proven guilty and a justice system if police are given the power to shoot to kill in any situation...

[lostalex]

...even in cases of guilt though/of committing a crime..would that crime bring a death sentence ...what's the point of innocent until proven guilty and a justice system if police are given the power to shoot to kill in any situation...

when the criminal reacts violently/unpredictably, yes, the cops lives matter more, because they are actually innocent. don't you agree?

[Ammi]

when the criminal reacts violently/unpredictably, yes, the cops lives matter more, because they are actually innocent. don't you agree?

...hmmm, no I don't think that I do agree Alex because in a split second of someone's life being taken...'unpredictably' would in many cases not be clearly enough defined but at the most, just be perceived as being 'imminent danger' ....maybe in some cases correct, but in others...no...yet regardless, both situations would have the same death sentence...

[Kizzy]

how many innocent people are actually killed by cops though?

even in this whole silly #blacklivesmatter thing, all of the black epople killed by cops were doing something wrong.

people who aren't doing anything wrong don't get killed by cops.

I haven't seen any recent examples of a completely innocent person getting killed by a cop...

Then where is the justice... The police aren't there to be judge, jury and executioner are they?

[Tom4784]

Defending the police and acting like they can do no wrong and victim blaming is foolish. Nothing will ever change if you bury your head in the sand.

[bots]

In the UK we just don't have a problem with gun crime like they have in the USA. If for example, a suspect puts his hand in his pocket here, its pretty unlikely he is going to bring out a gun, in the USA, its probably a high chance. There is therefore little justification for having a blanket shoot to kill policy here even with a current threat from terrorists.

We have to examine the number of interactions the police have on a daily basis with "normal" suspects against those with gun holding terrorists. That provides the perspective and sets the norms.

[DemolitionRed]

how many innocent people are actually killed by cops though?

even in this whole silly #blacklivesmatter thing, all of the black epople killed by cops were doing something wrong.

people who aren't doing anything wrong don't get killed by cops.

I haven't seen any recent examples of a completely innocent person getting killed by a cop...

You mean in the UK?

If we do have a shoot to kill policy it should only be used against an armed and dangerous criminal, not someone who has done wrong but is no danger to the police or the public; otherwise we just end up with another version of gun-ho America.

In America there are plenty of people who get shot and killed by cops. Whilst most of them are doing something wrong, many of them are shop lifters, car thief's or even just a speeding violation. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police-killings and here is the list of unarmed people killed across America this year http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database#

[Marsh.]

but it gives the criminals another advantage, doesn't it?

Maybe in America where guns are handed out with the morning papers. :hehe:

[lostalex]

Maybe in America where guns are handed out with the morning papers. :hehe:

Ive lived in America for 33 years, and the only people i've ever met that had guns were people that lived on large farms and killed geese and deer for meat.

[DemolitionRed]

It depends what part of America. We lived in Louisiana for a year and in the first week of arriving it was suggested we go to a gun fair and buy ourselves a weapon. We didn't even need a permit to buy a semi automatic weapon.

We didn't buy one but everyone we knew carried handguns and in the year we were there, there was a shooting incident in the papers every week.

[Mystic Mock]

I believe only in very serious cases like The Police Officers life was in danger if he/she didn't take the shot, or a Civilian was about to get killed and the only form of action that could be taken was to shoot the crook dead.

[kirklancaster]

In Alex's defence - No amount of legislation will prevent those criminal elements who form the very class of people such legislation would be targeted at (no pun intended) from possessing guns, because they have no regard for 'Law and Order' and would STILL have their guns.

We have laws prohibiting all manner of things - from speeding and driving without license, tax and insurance, to the actual unlawful possession of firearms - yet every day someone somewhere commits these very offences.

Laws only keep those citizens lawful who would be lawful anyway without the laws. They DO NOT and never will dissaude the unlawful from being so.

There ARE rogue cops in America, just as there are in any police force anywhere in the world, but if US police WERE disarmed, you would witness the biggest escalation in ALL crime there - specifically 'gun crime' - along with the greatest escalation in cop deaths in history.

This country is becoming more violent and gun crime more frequent and in a few years when we have caught the US up - as we ALWAYS do - then you will SEE our cops fully armed to combat this rise -- and rightfully so.

[DemolitionRed]

Actually I've got nothing against our police force carrying guns. They do so in most of Europe so why not here? Carrying a gun though shouldn't give them the right to shoot to kill, except in exceptional circumstances.

I firmly believe that our armed forces are the best in the world, regardless of their armoury being hand me downs. The training they get is second to none and perhaps their dedicated willingness to work as a team, which they are so renowned for, is a Brit thing. If our police forces are trained to be as tactical as our armies, then a shoot to kill policy would only be used in extreme circumstances.